The former order is need before tool where the latter is tool before previously shelved need.
When the subject perceived is a living being, then social constraints start to operate. Thus, "Breed+child =/= suitable mate" wereas "Breed+opposite sex of breeding age and willingness == suitable mate".
That's pretty much what I meant. Purpose is a mental construct, if not neccessarily exclusively a human one. Like sea otters who hunt for suitable objects to crack open clams and other mollusks. What humans can do that few others can even approach is give linguistic labels to purposeful objects.
Purpose, in terms of suitability to a task, can be seen in the lowliest of lichens who use vertical surfaces to grow and live on. But, without a mind, they have no concept of purpose.
Porpose, where the important part is 'pose', an intention. By design or intention. In that case, everything has the purpose the user assigns to it. If it was designed, then the designer has a purpose, an intended usage. Still an individual user as the designer.
Thus the old saw: "Life means exactly, and as much and not more nor less, as it means. Find your own purpose in life."
Well, how does one "assign" purpose to something when the thing changes in no way when that purpose is assigned? Also, if things don't change when get purposed assigned to them, then there is no logical way to tell if a thing has purpose on it or not.
I would say you can not "assign" purpose to anything, but you can assign purpose to your concepts of things. So, you can give the concept of your car, in your head, purpose, but you can't reach out onto reality and assign purpose.
This reminds me of the observer paradox and Schroedingers Cat. Nothing need change in the object assigned a purpose by user 1. User 2 can even assign a completely different purpose. The change in the object is in how the user perceives the object. The conclusion is that all and any purpose in the universe is purely a perceived one. There are constraints, but functional and social. Like the purpose of your mate or the suitability of a boulder to eat soup with.
"The conclusion is that all and any purpose in the universe is purely a perceived one."
I guess I just don't agree with that conclusion. I don't think that the purpose is "percieved," I think it is created in the mind. The color and size of an object are percieved, the purpose is not. If we both "percieved" differnt purposes on an object, I believe the logical conclusion would be that one, or both, of us is wrong, the same way if we percieve differnt colors on an object.
We would also both be right. After all, your perceptions are in your mind even though the sense organs give your mind the same data (my red is your red, barring abnormalities). I would see a stick and know I can use it as a club to hunt with. You would see the same and your mouth would water thinking about the meal you would cook using that stick. Our friend max would see that stick and be unhappy thinking about how he would have to clean the latrine with it. As I said, need versus suitability.
Isn't perception when something external to your mind causes an internal to your mind?
I don't think you seeing a stick causes you to create purpose in your mind. You working with the concept of the stick in your mind creates the purpose. That would mean you concieved the purpose after perceiving the stick. You didn't actually perceive the purpose on the stick.
Perceptions can be caused by external stimulus of sensors where the data is relayed to the brain *or* from internal processes. They don't become perceptions until they get provessed by the brain. That's what makes imaginary friends and dreams so appealing... and dangerous.
You have a need before you can find a purpose for something. The purpose you *do* see in any object is its suitability to a task. The process can be purpose->object->suitability= or it can be object->suitability->purpose=.
I want to buy your purposefull magical coconut destroying rock, but I fear that the volcano who gave it to you would be angry and try to shoot lava at me. Please ask your volcano friend if it would be ok for me to buy from you. I would be willing to pay $30,shipping and handling costs plus any sacrifice I would need to make to the volcano.
The former order is need before tool where the latter is tool before previously shelved need.
When the subject perceived is a living being, then social constraints start to operate. Thus, "Breed+child =/= suitable mate" wereas "Breed+opposite sex of breeding age and willingness == suitable mate".
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Sometimes when I talk to you, it feels like we agree on a doorway, but disagree on the doorframe.
But, do we both agree that consciousness is required for purpose to be said to exist? And that purpose is relative to each individual consciousness?
MotionFur 2 years ago
That's pretty much what I meant. Purpose is a mental construct, if not neccessarily exclusively a human one. Like sea otters who hunt for suitable objects to crack open clams and other mollusks. What humans can do that few others can even approach is give linguistic labels to purposeful objects.
Purpose, in terms of suitability to a task, can be seen in the lowliest of lichens who use vertical surfaces to grow and live on. But, without a mind, they have no concept of purpose.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Porpose, where the important part is 'pose', an intention. By design or intention. In that case, everything has the purpose the user assigns to it. If it was designed, then the designer has a purpose, an intended usage. Still an individual user as the designer.
Thus the old saw: "Life means exactly, and as much and not more nor less, as it means. Find your own purpose in life."
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Well, how does one "assign" purpose to something when the thing changes in no way when that purpose is assigned? Also, if things don't change when get purposed assigned to them, then there is no logical way to tell if a thing has purpose on it or not.
I would say you can not "assign" purpose to anything, but you can assign purpose to your concepts of things. So, you can give the concept of your car, in your head, purpose, but you can't reach out onto reality and assign purpose.
MotionFur 2 years ago
This reminds me of the observer paradox and Schroedingers Cat. Nothing need change in the object assigned a purpose by user 1. User 2 can even assign a completely different purpose. The change in the object is in how the user perceives the object. The conclusion is that all and any purpose in the universe is purely a perceived one. There are constraints, but functional and social. Like the purpose of your mate or the suitability of a boulder to eat soup with.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
"The conclusion is that all and any purpose in the universe is purely a perceived one."
I guess I just don't agree with that conclusion. I don't think that the purpose is "percieved," I think it is created in the mind. The color and size of an object are percieved, the purpose is not. If we both "percieved" differnt purposes on an object, I believe the logical conclusion would be that one, or both, of us is wrong, the same way if we percieve differnt colors on an object.
MotionFur 2 years ago
We would also both be right. After all, your perceptions are in your mind even though the sense organs give your mind the same data (my red is your red, barring abnormalities). I would see a stick and know I can use it as a club to hunt with. You would see the same and your mouth would water thinking about the meal you would cook using that stick. Our friend max would see that stick and be unhappy thinking about how he would have to clean the latrine with it. As I said, need versus suitability.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
"After all, your perceptions are in your mind"
Isn't perception when something external to your mind causes an internal to your mind?
I don't think you seeing a stick causes you to create purpose in your mind. You working with the concept of the stick in your mind creates the purpose. That would mean you concieved the purpose after perceiving the stick. You didn't actually perceive the purpose on the stick.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Perceptions can be caused by external stimulus of sensors where the data is relayed to the brain *or* from internal processes. They don't become perceptions until they get provessed by the brain. That's what makes imaginary friends and dreams so appealing... and dangerous.
You have a need before you can find a purpose for something. The purpose you *do* see in any object is its suitability to a task. The process can be purpose->object->suitability= or it can be object->suitability->purpose=.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Good rock analogy. 5 stars and Subscribed.
Rotkreuz 2 years ago
Great vid. At 3:33 I could hear that your kitty was in agreement with your statement about projecting purpose onto the universe.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
Sebastian, being my spiritual 'sensei,' is pleased with my progress on youtube so far.
MotionFur 2 years ago
I want to buy your purposefull magical coconut destroying rock, but I fear that the volcano who gave it to you would be angry and try to shoot lava at me. Please ask your volcano friend if it would be ok for me to buy from you. I would be willing to pay $30,shipping and handling costs plus any sacrifice I would need to make to the volcano.
SaintCog 2 years ago
So your saying that TFP was making a category error with purpose and scientific processes? Yea I would very much agree.
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
Really well explained. Thanks!
jagmarz 2 years ago
Heidegger was rather intriguing on this subject with his : Ready-to-hand/ Present-at-hand arguments.
I agree with your contention, though. Theists see teleology everywhere...they have to, I suppose.
EvoinOZ 2 years ago
Volcanoes don't spew out rocks for a reason? Damn, my life is over.
MenoftheFinite 2 years ago
Great video.
smpunditz 2 years ago
Thank you. :D
MotionFur 2 years ago